The Church of Kharma Futures

The Rev's views on politics, events,faith, and the world. All content copyright Church of Kharma Future 2007-2015 All rights Reserved

More on Islam/Christianity

Posted by revkharma on December 17, 2007

Sometimes I wonder about how this will all play out. Why for instance have there not been loud and furious protests by the ACLU over the obvious accommodations made to Islam? Why is the Federal Government permitting so many states to take steps to allow Islamic practices while restricting virtually all other faiths?

Is it a fear of backlash? Does our government just surrender to prevent violence here? That seems likely, but appearances can hide deeper truths. After all, since 9/11 we have unprecedented restrictions on our freedoms to protect us against ‘terrorists’ presumably, since all were Islamic, from Islamic terrorists. But, we have taken pains to stress that “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Most Muslims are good people”.

Is it merely an inordinate love of ‘Diversity”? The mantra of “Diversity is Good” has permeated our government and popular institutions over time so it has become a semi-official state religion.

As Mr. Clyde  Wilson(http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=414) has noted, flattening all religions can have the effect of creating a government religion. All are good and equal, means none are correct. If none are correct, than any may be controlled and/or suppressed.

Notice that for the last generation, the courts have ruled over and over that the state may not even respect any religion, unless all are equally represented. A Christmas display is ok, so long as a Menorah is present. We can have an invocation as long it is ‘non-denominational or completely non religious. We can have a ‘minute of silence’ but not a moment of prayer. By equating all religions, we dismiss them all as mere superstitions. This has been a goal of such groups as the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for years.

The mainline religions have understood this concept of a “Naked Public Square” to mean that all may practice their faith unmolested. The new kid on the block, Islam has taken it to be an open field, and begun to run to the goal line. By seizing the mantle of Civil Rights, the Islamists have eroded the wall, and earned a preferred place at the table. The anger within other groups has begun to simmer. As the Islamists continue to press forward against a continuously yielding establishment, the Christian and Jewish groups will continue to boil. The Islamic groups learn quickly that taking offense at any slight earns large rewards, and will continue the cry of victimhood, as they press their claim to be the legitimate religion, and eventually the legitimate legal system in the Western world.
The predictable backlash will be sudden and fierce. Those who previously were the majority will resist and with strength and skill learned over the years. The fury of centuries of perceived repression will burst forth from Islamic groups, bringing about a dangerous and violent clash.

Watch for the resultant crackdown against ALL religious groups by a newly fearful and strengthened Federal Government. The US regime will strike back at ‘rioters, looters and insurrectionists’ imposing penalties, restrictions and outright suspensions on civil and constitutional rights. The very crisis set into motion by the inaction and misdirection of the established regime will be the reasons used to justify the later imposition of more repressive rules designed to entrench a stronger, more restrictive government than we have seen in generations.

This is certainly speculative, and absolutely not provable. If you disagree… tell me so, and why. Do you trust those in power to use restraint, when they have not done so ever before?

Keep the Faith!

The Rev.

Advertisements

One Response to “More on Islam/Christianity”

  1. deaconkharmafuture1 said

    The following are highlights showing the court battles for public expression of faith in the United States:

    1892: The Supreme Court stated in the case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind…. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in a sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”[12]

    1952: William O. Douglas, although at the time one of the most liberal of the Supreme Court Justices, wrote, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. [When] the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, [it] respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”[13]

    1963: In his dissent in Abington School District v. Schempp, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “[A] compulsory state educational system so structures a child’s life that if religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed in this light, permission of such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.”[14]

    1983: The U.S. District Court stated, “The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion. When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established.”[15]

    1992: In Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court case that struck down high-school graduation prayer, Justice Scalia dissented saying that non-sectarian prayer at public gatherings and celebrations is a tradition that ought to be protected within the confines of the Establishment Clause.

    1998: The Supreme Court in 1998 narrowly rejected a proposal for a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools and religious displays in federal buildings.

    2000: In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling invalidating prayers conducted prior to a public high school football game. Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented, complaining that the majority’s opinion “bristled with hostility to all things religious in public life.”[16]

    2000: The Eleventh Circuit Court, in Chandler v. Siegelman, struck down a portion of an injunction that banned students from praying at any school function. In this case the Circuit Court condemned “school censorship of student prayer.” The Court concluded that it is “not the public context that makes some speech the State’s. It is the entanglement with the State…. Therefore if ‘nothing in the Constitution prohibits … any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day,’ then it does not prohibit prayer aloud or in front of others, as in the case of an audience assembled for some other purpose.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: